Zogby Shows No Bush Bounce; East and West Favor Impeachment

From the press release: President Bush's televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.

The Zogby America survey of 905 likely voters, conducted from June 27 through 29, 2005, has a margin of error of +/-3.3 percentage points.

Just one week ago, President Bush's job approval stood at a previous low of 44%--but it has now slipped another point to 43%, despite a speech to the nation intended to build support for the Administration and the ongoing Iraq War effort. The Zogby America survey includes calls made both before and after the President's address, and the results show no discernible "bump" in his job approval, with voter approval of his job performance at 45% in the final day of polling.

We will have to wait for further confirmation to really see if there was no bounce. Still, if there is not bounce, it is not a surprise. Not many people watched the speech, and those who did tended to already be Bush supporters.

On a different note, this part of the poll was particuarly interesting:

In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

Among those living in the Western states, a 52% majority favors Congress using the impeachment mechanism while just 41% are opposed; in Eastern states, 49% are in favor and 45% opposed. In the South, meanwhile, impeachment is opposed by three-in-five voters (60%) and supported by just one-in-three (34%); in the Central/Great Lakes region, 52% are opposed and 38% in favor.

Impeachment is overwhelmingly rejected in the Red States--just 36% say they agree Congress should use it if the President is found to have lied on Iraq, while 55% reject this view; in the "Blue States" that voted for Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry in 2004, meanwhile, a plurality of 48% favors such proceedings while 45% are opposed.

A large majority of Democrats (59%) say they agree that the President should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, while just three-in-ten (30%) disagree. Among President Bush's fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25%) indicate they would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances, while seven-in-ten (70%) do not. Independents are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49% opposed.

At first I thought it was great that the word "impeachment" had finally hit the mainstream: the more it comes up, the more it weakens Bush, right? Then I thought, even if we did take control of Congress in 2007, impeachment would be a bad idea. He would be out of office soon anyway, and it could turn him into a victim in the eyes of many voters. Then I thought I wasn't sure about either position, and I should put up a poll about it. And so I have.

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)



Time to pile on
This is one for everyone to blog about, especially the increased use of the "I" word: Impeachment. I'm a realist and know the GOP is in control, but the more people talk about it the harder it will be for Bush or the Republicans to do anything they really want. Plus it will help us in 2006.
by michael in chicago 2005-06-30 01:41PM | 0 recs
Impeachment is a no brainer
First we have to imagine the Democrats taking control of the House. Republicans are not going to start Impeachment proceedings, so that's the only way it can happen.

My only question is if Impeachment proceedings are inititated against Bush, is it also possible to include Cheney? I just don't know. I've never heard of Impeachment proceedings against a Vice-President, but I can't think of any reason why it would be a problem.

Not only was Cheney knee deep in lying to the American people and Congress, he was probably more directly involved in it than Bush. Cheney was the one who actually visited the Pentagon to personally check on the intelligence.

Can anyone tell me who would become President for Bush's last year in office if Bush and Cheney were both Impeached by a Democratic House and Bush and Cheney were both removed from office by an affirmative vote in the Senate?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-30 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment is a no brainer
If Bush and Cheney were impeached simultaneously (and convicted), then President Pelosi would take office.  More likely (if anything like impeachment can be called "likely") would be that one would be impeached and convicted, the other would then appoint a vice president, who would take over when the second is removed.....
by feynman 2005-06-30 03:28PM | 0 recs
Appointed Vice Presidents...
...need confirmation from a majority of both the House and Senate, as per the twenty fifth amendment.  Therefore, congress could do the impeachments in a row and merely not act on the appointment of a vice president to fill the vacancy before the second one was impeached (to get a President Pelosi).
by Geotpf 2005-07-01 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Impeachment is a no brainer
I had to sit and think about that for a while. It would have to depend on whether or not Bush and Cheney were tried separately, or jointly as part of the same criminal enterprise.

The President and VP have never been impeached jointly. In fact, as far as I know, no VP has ever been impeached, let alone convicted. Aaron Burr served the remainder of his term while under indictment in New Jersey for killing Alexander Hamilton, but no one bothered to impeach him.

If Bush and Cheney were jointly tried and convicted, and the House was in Democratic hands, under the Presidential Succession Law of 1947, then Nancy Pelosi would become President.

If Bush was convicted first, Cheney would become President, notwithstanding the spectre of his own impeachment. If Cheney was convicted first, then Amendment XXV kicks in, and Bush would nominate a new vice president subject to approval by majority vote of both houses of Congress. Since that person would have to be approved by a Democratic House, it would need to be a pretty moderate and innocuous Republican. (Substitute resignations for impeachments and you have basically the scenario that gave us Gerald Ford 30 years ago.)

by Crazy Vaclav 2005-06-30 03:29PM | 0 recs
Two For The Price of One
The good news is they're both guilty of the same crimes. So it's a two-fer.
by Paul Rosenberg 2005-06-30 07:09PM | 0 recs
You can just have impeachment hearings
You don't ever have to vote on impeachment. You just have the investigation. Have all every bit of evidence against Bush be testified to live in front of the TV cameras in Congress. Iraq to Halliburton to 9/11 to the Plame case.

Let's face it. It will take decades to get depositions for all the crimes Bush has committed. Running an impeachment investigation all the way through the elections cycle will still only scratch the surface.

by afs 2005-06-30 02:06PM | 0 recs
Impeachment is a bad idea
The reality, that is, and probably the talk as well.

If the Dems were to take at least one House of Congress in 2007, it would be because the GOP was seen as not capable of solving the very real problems facing the country.  What better way to convince voters that the Dems aren't either than to begin impeachment proceedings?

It would really take both Houses to make it work.  But if we have both Houses, why go down this road?  WHY NOT JUST GOVERN?  Being partisan and out for revenge and getting goodies to make us feel good is the Republican Way, not the Democratic Way.  The Democratic Way is to GOVERN, for chrissakes.  Why would we want to follow them into oblivion?

Peace out.

by Mimikatz 2005-06-30 02:09PM | 0 recs
I Wish We Could Do That, Mimi, I Really Do, But...
let's be realistic, shall we?

We tried governing in 1993-94, and what did that get us?  We could have been inverstigating 12 years of Reagan/Bush malfeasance--which we did occassionally investigate while it was going on, apologizing to the GOP every 2 minutes for what we were doing, of course.  But we decided to stop even that pussy-footing approach to investigation. We let everything slide, and decided to govern. And we haven't controlled the House for a split second ever since.

In order to govern, we need the Presidency, 60 Senators and a majority in the House of Representatives. Anything less than that, and all we can do is campaign.  So we better get damn good at it.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-06-30 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I Wish We Could Do That, Mimi, I Really . . .
Absolutely--and since we can't just govern now anyway, one of the best ways to start campaigning to govern is to campaign for impeachment. And besides--it doesn't matter if it's wrong or right politically (and if Zogby's numbers are close to correct, it's defintely right politically). Impeachment is supposed to be a moral matter--we're not the ones impeaching presidents over sexual matters. We're for impeaching the president over lying the country into a war. We have an obligation to fight for this, so no one ever tries to do it again.
by Thomas Pain 2005-06-30 06:30PM | 0 recs
The GOP Has Tried To Make 'Duty' Into A 4-Letter

But we shouldn't let them get away with it.

Impeachment is a duty of citizenship. If we don't take up our duty, our children, and their children's children will live in tyranny--or worse.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-06-30 07:07PM | 0 recs
To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question
When you have a president that openly says he wants this country to be a dictatorship, "just so long as I'm the dictator" and not just slipped and said it once as a joke but multiple times, and then starts behaving like one, I think yes, impeachment hearing have to be held. If for nothing else than to show future would be dictators that this won't be tolerated in our democracy.
by William Domingo 2005-06-30 02:12PM | 0 recs
no impeachment
what are we going to do impeach every second term president.even if he lied i`m not sure that`s an impeachable offense unless there was a devious reason behind it. bush could just argue he was doing his job of protecting america.i really think impeaching bush would seal a 2008 republican victory.let him stick around as an example of why we need to get rid of the republicans!
by temple1954 2005-06-30 02:41PM | 0 recs
I'm glad that "Impeachment" is in the mainstream now, but, as Mr. Boatwright points out, we would first have to take Congress.

In addition, "Impeachment" is too narrow; it only applies to Bush. "Accountability", "Resposibility", or, if we want to get Biblical, "Reckoning" may be better words, because they can also apply to the yes-men in Congress.

We need to find an umbrella for all of the following abuses:

Tribal Gaming & Fundraising
Implicates Tom DeLay, Cong. Bob Ney (House Administration Committe Chair, Cong. Doc Hastings (House Ethics Chair), Ralph Reed (Former Christian Coalition Leader and current canditate for Lt. Governor of Georgia) and Grover Norquist (anti-tax crusader and supporter of Gingrich Revolution)

Profiting From Positon
Cong. Randy Duke Cunningham, made $700,000 of a real estate deal with a military contrator who was simultaneouly lending him a yacht to live on (all while lobbying his committee)

Abuse & Lack of Values
Cong Sherwood, currently being sued for $5.5 million by his mistress for allegely attempting to choke and punch her.  The Congressman has not yet divorced his wife.


you name it

What is the best way to describe all of this, and what is the best way to describe our alternative?

I think "Betrayal" is the key word here.  All of these amount to a betrayal of of American values of family and fairness,  trust, their oaths of office, and the rule of law.

Most importanty, it is a pattern of betrayal of their own supporters, who believed they were electing honest populists. This is key, because one of our biggest mistakes has been to mock Bush supporters, which made them circle their wagons,  instead of pointing out how Bush and his allies have broken almost every promise they made, even to the people who voted for them.

What do we offer? Suggestions:

 Effective and Accountable Government.
Leaders who mean what they say.
Real Protection from threats abroad, and at home,  including disease, industrial poison and corrupt government.
An invitation to participation and prosperity.  

(I got many of these ideas from George Lakoff's book, "Don't Think of an Elephant".  I keep mentioning him for three reasons: 1) he outlines these ideas much better than I do, 2)to give credit where credit is due, and 3) in hopes every one will by his book and check out the Rockridge Institute: www.rockridgeinstitute.org )

by Mudshark 2005-06-30 02:44PM | 0 recs
We Impeach...
so that future administrations don't feel like they can get away with this kind of shit.

What happens when all these Nixon people's kids start running for office?

by Village Jenius 2005-06-30 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: We Impeach...
"What happens when all these Nixon people's kids start running for office?"

Ed Cox, Nixon's son-in-law (Tricia's husband) is intending to run against Hillary Clinton in 2006.

by Ellen Dana Nagler 2005-06-30 10:16PM | 0 recs
Impeachment for the crimes and nothing less
will do.

1,700 U.S. soldiers dead, billions of US$$ wasted, the economic fallout from the war has not hit yet --but it will and it will hurt badly.  Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, artifacts forever destroyed and vanished, an entire country (not just Fallujah) denigrated and demolished over lies and coverups.

I think impeachment is too good for him.

by bronte17 2005-06-30 03:01PM | 0 recs
I for one can't imagine why anyone
would be pushing this.  It woulf have virtually no positive political benefits for the Democrats, for one thing.  And for another, it will be setting up then-president-for-life Cheney with a bunch of aggrieved conservative defenders of the regime. :)
by descrates 2005-06-30 03:04PM | 0 recs
Well, it would be a double impeachment
The goal would be President Pelosi.
by Geotpf 2005-06-30 03:33PM | 0 recs
Remember, Impeaching Bush
...means Cheney is in charge openly.

Unless you want to go after them both.

by MNPundit 2005-06-30 03:06PM | 0 recs
Then there's Rep. Donald Sherwood
(R-Pa.), who also wrapped himself in the Old Glory amendment. This is the Sherwood of the "Sherwood denies choking woman" headline in the April 30 Wilkes-Barre Times Leader. The married, 64-year-old lawmaker told the paper he was just giving an "acquaintance" (a former Hill intern) a "back rub" in his Washington apartment when suddenly she ran into the bathroom and called the police. The 29-year-old "acquaintance" proceeded to file a $5.5-million lawsuit against the congressman, alleging they had a five-year affair punctuated by bouts of physical abuse.

Sherwood has apologized to his family and constituents for causing "pain and embarrassment" but denied the assault allegations. Republicans who thought a president having sex with an intern was an impeachable offense have rallied round.


by William Domingo 2005-06-30 03:13PM | 0 recs
Invasion using an excuse. Hitler did that ....
and so did Bush. Although Bush hasn't killed any Jews yet, he did kill 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians according to source.

Bring Bush to the Hague as soon as possible.

Chimpeachment? That will not do anything.

I call for an economic revolt.

Join the revolution

hit Republican contributors in their wallets.


by maximus7 2005-06-30 03:31PM | 0 recs
before you impeach

Let's not put the cart before the horse. Don't forget that a long investigation by Starr preceded the Clinton impeachment.

What we need is along, detailed investigation, on several fronts, by several congressional commitees. What is exposed wil be as harmful as an impeachment. If, after this, sentiment in the country is so riled that impeachment gains widespread support, then impeach, even if he has six months left in his term.

by mjshep 2005-06-30 03:44PM | 0 recs
Impeachment? Who needs it?
How about an investigation whose final report is released in, say, October 2008?

Let's just leave GWB's rotting corpse on display for the last month or two of his term, and let the people reflect on what has happened to their country.  Then let them go vote.

by KTinOhio 2005-06-30 03:52PM | 0 recs
Got To Impeach
Otherwise, he turns into Reagan, who's being spun as a beloved and successful President after his non-impeachment.
by EastFallowfield 2005-06-30 04:03PM | 0 recs
It was a fantasy w. the Republicans against Clinton, and it is a fantasy with the Democrats against Republicans seeking impeachment. Focus on winning by the House and Senate, and then let's talk about iimpeachment. We aren't going to win by talking about impeachment. Just the two cents of a non politically connected voter who knows enough conservative independents to know that we need to let the Republicans keep hurting themselves. THe agenda next year should be accountability- not impeachment.
by bruh21 2005-06-30 04:49PM | 0 recs
This is why polls are irrelevant
This is why you can ignore this poll,
its really about TV viewing and not
about policy.

The GOP and their media experts under
Rove thought they could arrest the freefall
in bush's popularity index with this
made-for-tv event.

But they were wrong. The blogosphere rules.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-06-30 05:00PM | 0 recs
by Alice Marshall 2005-06-30 06:24PM | 0 recs
We Are Such Wimps!
The GOP would never agonize like this.  We are such wimps, and the reason we aren't in power is precisely because we are such wimps.

Should we govern, rather than attack the GOP? Absolutely! In a moral-imperative sense.  But short of having (1) the Presidency, (2) a fillibuster-proof Senate majority, and (3) enough of a House majority to make defection a non-issue, this is an absolutely moot point.  The GOP has turned this into an era of all-out war.  We did not choose this, but it is reality.  The only way to end this reality is beat the living tar out of them. Then, and only then can we get back to the sort of politics that Democrats believe in--the politics of governing in the public interest.

In a fine, fine article, "War or Impeachment" at Consortiumnews.com, Robert Parry--the journalist who broke the Iran/Contra Affair--writes:

the American people have only two choices on what to do next: they can continue to send their young soldiers into the Iraqi death trap for at least the next several years and hope for the best, or they can build a movement for impeaching George W. Bush and other administration officials - and then try to make the best of a bad situation in Iraq.

Although the realistic prospects for electing a Congress in 2006 that would act against Bush may appear slim, an impeachment movement would create at least a focus for a national political campaign, much like the Republicans used the Contract with America to gain their congressional majorities in 1994.

An impeachment strategy would have two other benefits: it would create the framework for an official investigation into the deceptions that led the nation to war in 2002-2003 (as well as into the incompetence with which the war was fought) and it would offer a legal structure for achieving some accountability.

No accountability means that a precedent has been set for future presidents misleading the nation into other aggressive wars of choice and paying no price.

While many liberals and Democrats reject an impeachment strategy - fearing that it would be too confrontational and carry too many political risks - there are dangers, too, in again trying to finesse the Iraq War, as Democrats did in the disastrous elections of 2002 and 2004.

Arguably, the Democrats would be no worse off - and might actually be in control of the government - if they had stood up to Bush's war hysteria in 2002 and made the case in 2004 that the war must be brought to a swift conclusion. If Election 2006 is a reprise of the past two elections, the Republicans might actually gain ground against a demoralized Democratic base.

That's a pretty damn compelling argument for me.  After all, the first order of business in governing properly will have to be to repeal 99%+ of everything the Republicans have done.  And how better to lay the groundwork for that than to thoroughly expose the lies and corruption that go to the very heart of everything they stand for?

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-06-30 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: We Are Such Wimps!
Amen to all that. The most important part of Parry's argument is the last bit about trying to finesse the war again. One Wednesday morning Biden and Kerry were falling all over themselves to declare we need more troops in Iraq. For God's sake, how many more? And where are you going to get them? And how are you going to pay for it?

Get out in front of this. The point of calling for impeachment is not that it necessarily becomes impeachment--it's that it forces us, finally, to take a moral fucking stance against this war and against these people. It forces us to stand up.

And people want us to stand up, dammit! How long do you have to hold Democrats' hands and lead them to these numbers and these very unhappy voters before they get the message? We can win again if we take a stand.

by Thomas Pain 2005-06-30 06:38PM | 0 recs
cheney in charge
first post-

i say go after bush.  Cheney is very unpopular (except among the extreme, extreme right) in questionable health and would be
the lamest of chickenhawks.

by juaniflaco 2005-06-30 07:42PM | 0 recs
Why We Should Impeach Bush
Here's the way I see it:

  1. Bush has met all of the standards for impeachment - he not only lied to Congress, he manufactured evidence to bring us into a war that has irrevocably damaged our image, our finances, our military, and, to a large extent, the American people's faith in their government.

  2. If we don't impeach Bush for such grievous acts of corruption and malfeasance, then that lowers the standard for all future presidents, and by interpolation, makes such Orwellian tactics acceptable. Very simply put, all a future President has to do to justify this sort of illegal action is look back at history, and say to themselves, "Well, Bush got away with it".

Ultimately, this is a decision that shouldn't be made based on the short-term goal of removing Bush from office, but rather one that should be made in the long-term interests of the country. If our Constitutional processes are ignored when a prime candidate for impeachment comes under scruntiny, those very processes lose power and effectiveness.

An effective government and healthy society is founded on the concept of justice applied unilaterally to all citizens, regardless of the particular power politics or issues in play. It's important to recognize that at this stage of the game, it's not about beating Republicans - for the immediate future, they've won.

The battle now is to preserve the institutions that have protected our country from tyranny since it's inception. We can afford to lose an impeachment battle, but we cannot afford a refusal to fight it.

by Mercutio 2005-07-01 10:37AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads